Slavic Warriors

I wanted to say that in some theories Viking/Varjags not only Scandinavians , but Curonians (and others floating people from Baltic sea coast) could be called Viking/Varjags too.

Originally posted by axeman The Varjags in ancient Rus might be from different origins, but Scandinavian origin was of major influence. Even the last grand prince of united Rus Yaroslav the Wise spoke Scandinavian language.

It's the most popular and proven theory. IMHO russification(not only language) of Scadinavians nobles/people in Ancient Rus came to its' end when their names became Slavic (like Vladimir, Yaroslav, Svjatoslav, etc).

I could start to look deeper to non-Scandinavian theories only if somebody will explain me why names of first known Russian Dukes&Co were not Slavic (Igor, Oleg, Rurik, Sven, etc) .

 

 

 

I would doubt about Daria. It has very convincing slavonic ethymology. But my point was that Rurik, Oleg and Olga are not necesserily NOT slavonic just because they didn't have Slavonic names. At least I see something weird in this linguistic proofs.

 Did you notice the word "mentions"? It's a list of works that mention Venetians as a nation. Nothing else. I belive I wrote 1. "read it from a distance", 2. "here are some "bones for you to chew on""

I never said that I agree with everything this works say. It's a list of works that I have read or heard of and know their contents. I was looking for Venetian and Slav references. (because there is despute in some Slavic countries, wether Venetians were part of Slavs or part of Kelts or a nation for it's self... well at least here). Not all of the boks have everything correct. Some are partly even silly and not logical! Like I said in my previous post: I don't learn history by hearth. Since I obviously confused you, let me tell you how I -lets say- treat history: like I said I read alot and god knows I many times forget where I have read this or that. But when I finish a segment, I lean back and think:"Ok, this is what here is stated, I have read this and this, 1. is it possible to logically conect theese two sources on the level of a) writers' deduction b) claims of historic writers. If yes, ok than this must be it, if not: writers deductions differ because of... (political, ideological view, they didn't notice something, etc.), ok, I must make my own from historycal source and archeological evidence."

I put archeological evidence allways first!!!!!!!!!!!! They never lie!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I look at contemporary writings I ask my self:"Who was the writer, what were the circumstances of his writing, can I tell byesty, is he in general silly and unlogical?" And the most part I spend studiing descriptions of findings, known psihology and sociology ishues of that time, etc. Then I make my own deduction. 

 

And I can understand that a country like Slovenia has a need for a past of its own.

 

Are you by any chance patronising Slovenians???!!! Slovenia already has it's own history!!! Slovenian grandfathers lived here since the ice melted! Stronger neighbours and other dramatical event's (I don't have the time nor the will to write that all right now) led to downfall of our nation and what followed was 1000 years of back breaking (practical) slavery, humiliation and germanization, but that is another story. This nation does not seek for it's history! No! It already has one to be proud of, because we endured this 1000 years of national hell and we are still here today, watching how theese spineless politicians of ours are putting us back where we were before our grandfathers shed blood for our freedom in the beginning of the past century!!!!! 

 

But when you first claim that all previous historians are wrong, and then put references to books from the 1920s in your list....

 

Ok, maby I was a little to pashionate with that statement. Like I said above and that list is not compleete!!!

Let me put it this way: truth is a circle of perfection, but loking at it from different corners, the curve and paths of it don't allways look clearly monotone... And the catch of the mater is that it allows free interpretation... And that is what many have abused and still do so, unfortunately even in history. Marx tried to make it official... He just succeded in making lies mixed with truth to stick - officialy and scientifically, influenced by politics, patriotic and other feelings that don't belong into science! Sadly it matters who you are in social sciences... My point is, what is commonly exepted, may proove wrong in time (or not), mainly depending on speculations, who resirchers are and with what background, circumstances, needs of politics even. I'm sorry for all this wafling, but I would have to write a f**king book to show you how I know what I know, my fingers hurt and I lack time write now. Maby in the summer I will dig into it. But I have a better idea! If I go to Netherlands or you come to Slovenia, we should get together and than we can talk this over!